///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
LOST IN CO-X
INTERPRETATIONS OF CO-DESIGN AND CO-CREATION
Tuuli Mattelmäki
Aalto University School of Art and
Design
Tuuli.mattelmaki@aalto.fi
ABSTRACT
In the last decade, co-design and co-creation are
terms that appear widely in scientific literature, in
professional magazines, websites of product
development companies, design research and market
research agencies and even public organisations’
reports. We have noticed that the terms are often
tangled. The objective of this paper is to clarify the
relationship of co-design and co-creation in the
context of design and design research. We aim to
make sense of the background and use of the terms
to show similarities and differences between them.
We review literature and discuss recent cases to
demonstrate the spectrum of co-X. Our main aim is to
clarify the co-terms for our design students in the
rapidly evolving design research field.
Froukje Sleeswijk Visser
Delft University of Technology
F.SleeswijkVisser@tudelft.nl
of Art and Design for some ten years and part of the
education for approximately five years. The research
on what we call ‘co-design’ and the cases and
experimentations under that title, have been built
on user-centred design and empathic design
approaches. The early research interests in
interaction design and usability were widened with
studies that considered design for experiences and
tried to capture a more holistic picture of the ‘user’.
Empathic design starts with a need to understand
user experiences in early phases of the design
process (Koskinen et al, 2003). For that reason
combinations of both objective and subjective
methods are applied. The reason for the application
of ‘less-objective’ methods, beyond the user
insights, is that they create shared experience and
common reference points within the design team and
Keywords: co-design, co-creation, user
engagement
other stakeholders (Fulton Suri, 2003). Thus, the
INTRODUCTION
environments also addresses the news kinds of
Co-design and co-creation appear frequently in user
involvement related discussions and cause confusion
among the design community. This is especially true
among design students. What is the difference? Was
one before the other? This paper aims to develop an
understanding of the co-X, i.e. investigating the
similarities and differences of co-design and cocreation. Therefore, we first introduce two examples
of academic environments that use both ‘co-design’
and ‘co-creation’ for describing similar projects that
include a large toolbox of creative methods as well
as users’ and other stakeholders’ involvement. Since
even these two similar institutions are confusing the
terms we see a need for clarity and start by looking
how others have used these terms.
First, co-design has been part of the Department of
Design’s research agenda at Aalto University School
experience driven empathic design that first focused
on being involved with the users in their own
collaborations with the design team and partners to
promote shared visions.
The researchers most having background in industrial
design, have also emphasised the applications of
creative and designerly approaches in research. We
have studied, developed and applied various kinds of
methods for understanding users, and to inform and
inspire designers by inviting users and
representatives of partnering companies to
brainstorm solutions and to make interpretations
together. The toolkit has included approaches such
as design probes (Mattelmäki, 2006), design games
(Brandt, 2006), collage-making and make tools
(Sanders & Dandavate, 1999). We have also
experimented with empathic design practices in
design areas beyond product and interaction design.
DIVERSITY AND UNITY
Without exception the experiments in which users or
the term co-creation to either indicate that in a
other stakeholders are invited to contribute to the
project users are actually ‘creating’ new ideas
design process have been called co-design under the
themselves (through the guidance of design
larger mindset of user-centred design (UCD). In co-
researchers) or to indicate an iterative process of
design the designers (or design researchers) typically
user involvement and users and stakeholders are
facilitate the collaborative process but often also
consulted in every stage of a design process such as
participate in the process as one of the contributors.
product development (see e.g. Sleeswijk Visser and
The co-design activities typically aim at searching
Visser, 2005). Both of the descriptions of co-creation
new potential directions and producing design ideas
are what the Aalto design researchers refer to as co-
and solutions. However, they can also be about
design as an umbrella term.
making sense of the topic or expressing experiences
Co-X competence in both of these academic
collaboratively. But even then the activities are part
environments has grown in close connection with the
of design related processes one way or another,
development of industrial and interaction design but
typically in the early phases of the exploring.
the application area is getting wider since a few
Second, at the faculty of Industrial Design
years. The kind of co-X activities that we tend to
Engineering, Delft University of Technology, a similar
apply can also support various kinds of collaborations
development has been taken place. We have been
outside the more traditional design field. These new
exploring the co-X methods and techniques in our
fields include social design (e.g. Brown, 2009),
research agenda and education for the last ten years
transformation design (Burns et al, 2006), service
as well. ID-StudioLab, a design research community
design (e.g. Evenson, 2005) and activities related to
within the faculty, promotes and conducts user-
design thinking (e.g. Brown, 2009).
centred design projects (van der Helm et al, 2010).
WIDENING THE VIEW OF CO-X
New methods and tools are continuously being
developed to fruitfully involve users in the design
In the following section we go through some of the
process (see e.g., van Rijn et al, 2009, Stappers et
relevant approaches and authors for discovering the
al, 2009 and Saakes, 2007). Contextmapping
various aspects of co-X. We are aware that there are
(Sleeswijk Visser et al, 2005), for example, as a
much more, but we have chosen ones that have been
procedure, was developed to research people’s
either influential to our co-X dilemma in the first
everyday context in order to inform and inspire the
place or are timely examples of the current
design process. Contextmapping is based on the
confusion in the application of co-X.
application of self-documenting kits and make tools
(Sanders, 2001) and involves users as experts of their
PARTICIPATORY DESIGN AND CO-DESIGN
experiences in the design process. We have not
Participatory design (PD) is tightly connected to co-
particularly been using the term co-design for our
X. PD has its roots in the 70s Scandinavia, where
projects, but like design researchers at Aalto
joint decision-making and work practices started to
University, we have applied various kinds of methods
receive attention. One of the key words in PD is
for understanding users, invited users and
empowering; the ones who are affected by design
representatives of partnering companies to explore,
should have a possibility to influence the design. The
brainstorm and interpret together.
participants are also seen as beneficial contributors
In contrast, we have been using the term co-creation
to the design by offering their expertise and
when users are stepping into the shoes of designers,
knowledge as a resource in the process. The early PD
are given tools to be able to ‘create new ideas’ and
projects were mostly conducted in work-settings. PD
are facilitated in the creation process by designers
approaches had connections with political
and researchers. However, stepping into the shoes of
statements on e.g. the workers’ possibility and right
designers might indicate different roles for these
to affect their work (among others Ehn, 2008).
users as in co-design activities. A user can be an
PD thus is about involving users in design or as Ehn
information provider, a creative mind, an evaluator
writes “with a special focus on people participating
of new ideas, etc. To be honest we ambiguously use
in the design process as co-designers” (Ehn, 2008, p.
2
PRODEEDINGS IASDR2011
93). They are envisioning use before it actually takes
Dutch and Nordic research communities which is why
place. This also underlines one of the characteristics
his view on co-designing can be a valuable example.
of co-design: it is about users or more generally,
He states ”As I firmly believed in the UCD I decided
people imagining and planning with issues that are
to fully involve users in the creative process of
not-yet-existing and utilizing the skills that are in the
finding solutions to support their work by conducting
core of professional design competence.
co-design sessions.” (p.105). He then continues
Participatory design and co-design are often used as
describing the co-design workshops that he calls
synonyms in the Nordic countries. Co-design carries
dialogue labs referring mostly to authors within the
perhaps a bit lighter weight on the political attitude
PD tradition such as Buur, Binder and Brandt. He thus
but builds on the same mindset and tools.
builds on user-centred design (UCD) in which PD
In a recent book published by DAIM project (Halse et
inspired co-design is part of the process.
al, 2010) Binder (2010), a representative design
Adding an Italian perspective to our exploration we
researcher with Scandinavian PD background,
looked how Rizzo (2010) describes co-design as an
describes co-design sessions as workshops “for
umbrella that connects a range of tools and
sketching and trying out possibilities” (p. 19). His
practices. She does not refer to co-design as a
colleagues Brandt and Agger Eriksen (2010) further
synonym to PD but sees it as an evolutionary
describe co-design events as ‘series of meetings into
approach from UCD. However, she underlines that
which the core design team invites other important
UCD and co-design are different. UCD is a precise
stakeholders’. The name co-design event according
design methodology whose ‘application conducts
to them points out "the open-ended, collaborative,
designers to develop usable design solutions for end
exploratory and creative” working mode, i.e. “They
users’ while co-design ‘is a set of creative techniques
are temporary spaces for experimentation and
whose aim is to inspire the design process.’ In her
collaborative learning.” (p. 71). Although the weight
view, the shifts from UCD and object-centred view to
in the book is in the term co-design, the team also
pleasure and experience-driven perspectives have
recognises the presence of co-creation: the material
set the ground for co-design. Both university units
for co-design events needs to be designed so that it
described earlier have witnessed this evolution and
invites and facilitates co-creation (Foverskov and
relate to Rizzo’s view, however, also influences from
Dam, 2010, p. 44). Here co-creation is an activity or
PD can be identified such as the empowerment
a moment of creating something together, thus takes
attitude.
place in the co-design sessions that are about
Keinonen (2009) has reflected on design research
collaborative exploration, planning and learning. In
methods and has identified that there are three
this project manifesting ‘users’ or their involvement
layers in them: instrument, competence and agenda.
is not really the issue. Instead various people from
In his view method is not just an instrument that can
shopping mall customers to shop managers and waste
be taken from the shelf, but the application can be
handling experts are invited to ‘rehearse the future’
built upon a particular personal competence such as
with the support of the co-design methods.
empathic sensitivity. Furthermore, certain methods
In another recent publication (van der Lugt et al,
and their applications can be part of an agenda such
2009) from the Dutch context titled Co-design
as advocating for the empowerment of employees in
Pressure Cooker co-design is defined as a method in
the decision-making.
which users are invited to actively participate in the
The discussion above can be summarised with
design process similar to PD. Here the term ‘co-
Keinonen’s layers. Co-design connected with PD has
design’ is explicitly used as a collection term for the
an agenda. It is about empowering people that are
many methods that can be applied in different stages
affected by the design. It also emphasises an
of the design process. Whereas ‘co-creation’
experience-driven mindset. In addition co-design is a
according to the authors is one of the methods of co-
set of tools, instruments that allow and trigger co-
design, in which users create solutions.
design and events as forums in which the co-design
Also Lucero Vera talks about co-designing in his
takes place and in which the tools are applied. The
doctoral thesis (2009). He has been exposed to both
competence in co-design seems to have a role too:
3
DIVERSITY AND UNITY
the future ‘users’ are invited to utilise their
make tools, are ”a new language for co-design” (p.
competence, experiences and creativity for design.
90). Co-design is about as facilitation of “exchange
However, although the presence of ‘users’ is
between people who experience products,
acknowledged as the starting point, the participants
interfaces, systems and spaces and people who
in co-design can be selected with a wider scope.
design for experiencing.” This is one of the key
Finally, co-creation seems to open up into two
publications that has influenced both co-design and
interpretations: the first one is a creative moment,
experience design and connects strongly to Rizzo’s
atmosphere in a co-design event. The second is a
view on co-design.
method in the co-design process or during an event
In 2001 Sanders stresses the need of a new attitude
where the users create solutions.
in design for experiencing. It is about respecting the
opinions and creativity of people designers are
GENERATIVE APPROACH AND CO-X
designing for. She introduces a concept collective
One of the influential practitioners in emphasizing
creativity and believes that it is more potential and
users participation in design is Liz Sanders whose
powerful than individual creativity. (Sanders, 2000)
work has greatly inspired and affected both of the
Her 2001 article (Sanders and William, 2001)
authors’ work and teaching. We have adopted her
continues the discussion based on creativity
approaches for enhancing everyday people’s creative
references. She elaborates on the need of supportive
expression and the mindset of valuing people being
tools for harnessing people’s creativity with visual
experts of their own experiences. In order to clarify
communication. In another publication from 2002 she
her stand we conducted a review on Sander’s
continues with the same line of thought, now
publications which is summarized in the following:
introducing a new design space namely co-design
Sanders (1992) sees that participatory design is user
space in which ”interdisciplinary experts in design
centred design taken to another level. Her thoughts
and research will work together with ordinary
have similarities to Scandinavian PD community’s but
people.” (Sanders, 2002)
she does not refer to its work. Here, the
In her paper from 2005 (Sanders, 2005) she further
participation is about involving consumers in the
develops the earlier concept of collective creativity
design process. She contrasts this approach to
and brings forward the term co-creation. It is about
traditional UCD where user research is about
everyday people’s (who were called earlier as
questionnaires, lab tests and focus groups, and in
consumers and then as end-users) creativity and
which these results are reported to the designers.
eagerness in being involved and expressing their
She further points out that participation does not
creativity. Sanders calls for ‘co-creating spaces’.
consider only users but also all the stakeholders in
Those are settings in which designers and everyday
the product development process (which stems with
people work collaboratively throughout the design
DAIM’s co-design mindset.)
development process. Her ‘co-creating spaces’ can
In her keynote from 1999 she emphasizes the end-
be interpreted close to what DAIM researchers call
users’ role. In her opinion they can and should be the
co-design events, however in her view they are not
most important players in the design process. She
temporary but something that take place during the
defines co-design as “people designing together”
whole design process.
This happens when people collectively apply new
In the more recent publication (Sanders and
kinds of visual tools as they participate in the design
Stappers, 2008) she refers to co-creation as ‘any act
process. (Sanders, 1999).
of collective creativity, i.e., creativity that is shared
The publication from 1999 (Sanders & Dandavate,
by two or more people’. Whereas co-design is used
1999) contextualizes her work with what she calls
‘to indicate collective creativity as it is applied
the emerging participatory design approach. Her
across the whole span of a design process’. This
main point in the paper is that ”it is possible to gain
shows that she sees co-creation as a very broad
access to the experiencer’s world only through his or
concept and when applied in design “co-design is
her participation in expressing that experience.” The
specific instance of co-creation”. This statement is
tools for participation and expression that she calls
4
PRODEEDINGS IASDR2011
in contrast with the earlier interpretation that cocreation happens in co-design events.
This review of Sanders’ publications resulted an
understanding of how her application of the co-x
terms has been elaborating over the years including
a strong agenda and development of instruments.
Firstly, she stresses involving users who she calls
‘everyday people’ in the product development
process.
Secondly, she also introduces new kinds of tools that
aim at supporting people in expressing their
experiences and using their creativity in the design
process.
Figure 1. The four co-design directions: A) The users are given
voice and their expertise is utilised in the design process; B) Users
contribution is facilitated with tools provided by the designers or
researchers; C) The designer is not only a facilitator but
participates in the collective creation; D) Designers and design
researchers support and facilitate a collaborative process of
various stakeholders, not just users.
Thirdly, she points out the attitude building of
respecting everyday people’s creativity and
Fourthly, enhancing the creativity and exchange
between people in a process she calls space for
collective creativity (co-creation). In her view the
actual creation in co-creation is the collective
EVEN MORE CO-XS
creativity, and therefore design (in the co-design) is
Co-creation as a term also appears outside the
just a part of the bigger collective creativity. What
design field such as in business literature and
she seems to refer to as co-creation, rather than a
marketing and has been brought up e.g. by Prahalad
process or practice in design, is a larger trend of
and Ramaswamy (2000) about ten years ago. They
openness and creative mindset.
talk about creating value with customers as part of
Summarising the discussion above co-design seems to
market and business strategy. The business-like
open up into four directions. The first one
perspective on the term co-creation has gained much
emphasises the role of the user following the
attention and involves new topics such as mass-
traditions of UCD and participatory design. Its main
customization and open innovation.
concern is that the users voice needs to be heard in
A form of co-creation in business also appears in the
the design process. The second direction focuses on
sense of being creative together, which seems to
methods and tools that support users to tell about
stem with Sanders’ thoughts on collective creativity.
their experiences and design ideas that can be
For example John Winsor (2006) in his book titled
interpreted and that inspire design. The third is
“Spark- Be more innovative through co-creation”
about design collaboration in which users and
states that co-creation is about engaging with the
designers and alike exchange ideas, envision in a
internal team as well as with the customers and
collaborative creation process. In the fourth
their. His examples of co-creative practices are e.g.
direction users have important roles but other
using visual triggers, cross-pollination of ideas and
stakeholders are also meaningful in the exploration
providing inspiring spaces for sharing and discussing
and envisioning process. This direction does not put
in the offices. Windsor also points out the
emphasis on the engagement of the users but invites
importance of creating new kinds of dialogues with
a wide range of people to brainstorm and learn
the customers. In this way co-creation is not
together. The engagement often takes place in
necessarily connected to design as such but indicates
several workshop-like events. In these events
an atmosphere and practice of fruitful and
creative envisioning and making are important and
innovative business.
co-creation needs support with methods and
Another example of the wide applications of co-X
materials.
points at open innovation. A strategic consultancy,
Fronteer Strategy, in The Netherlands defines cocreation as “the practice of collaborative product
5
DIVERSITY AND UNITY
and service development: developers and
health services could be a process in which the
stakeholders working together” (Paaper, 2009, p. 2).
patients, citizens or collaborative communities take
They see co-creation as a large concept related to
responsibilities in creating and contributing to
open innovation where ownership and openness of
services along with e.g. health care professionals in
the process are the main concerns. They thus use the
the public sector. Then, the term co-creation is used
term co-creation as a mindset and collection of tools
to describe a longer process of dialogues and
rather than a focused method.
engagement that includes sharing risks and
Without going further to the open innovation or the
responsibilities in particular, not a unique event or
questions concerning ownerships in e.g. mass-
moment in a workshop. In this anticipated situation
innovation these timely examples illustrate the
everyone is a designer according to Cottam and
current trend of engaging various kinds of people in
Leadbeater’s view. The professional designer’s role
collaborative or collective contributions. In
then becomes one of a coordinator, developer and
conclusion, business and marketing are using the co-
provider of co-creation tools (Cottam and
creation term widely to address any stakeholder
Leadbeater, 2004). This view is in line with Sanders’
involvement and/or engagement in innovation
thoughts.
processes.
This review shows the unclear use of co-design and
Moreover, the new boom of ‘service design’ further
co-creation terms and that co-X covers a wide range
confuses the usage of the co-X concepts, co-creation
of activities both within the design field and beyond.
in particular. Service design is often referred to be
In design context co-creation addresses creative
human-centred and the many of the tools utilised
collaboration within organizations, between the
come from UCD and PD practices from observation
design teams and users, but also among other
and probes to various kinds of co-X workshops (see
experts, collaborative companies, or even networks
e.g. Miettinen and Koivisto, 2009). However, co-
of stakeholders. The objectives of such activities are
creation in service design is applied to mean at least
to apply the various participants’ expertise into
two things according to Birgit Mager (2009). First,
design projects as well as to support engagement in
clients and customers participate in to the process of
change-oriented goals whether defined as ‘design’ or
exploration and creation alike PD and in Sanders’
referring to other kind of development processes.
approaches. Second, the customers also participate
To summarise the review we list our findings:
to the service delivery process, i.e. services are not
Co-design is
purchased as goods but they are produced and
• utilised in design context in which designers are
consumed in interaction with the customer and
involved and the topic of the activity is related to
service provider.
design exploration, envisioning and solution
Also Vargo and Lusch (2008), who advocate for
development.
service dominant logic instead of traditional
• an empowering mindset and it gives voice and
marketing thinking, point out the service co-creation
tools to those who were not traditionally part of
as “assisting customers in their own value-creation
design process.
process” (p. 257). One of the mindsets behind the
service-dominant logic is customer-centric thinking,
• about engagement of potential users but also
but it also points out bringing organisation partners
about stakeholder collaboration.
to join the co-creation process.
• a process and tools of collaborative engagement,
This is where a lot of the confusion comes from:
e.g. events for learning and exploration.
methods that were developed for co-designing with
Co-creation in design
potential users or other stakeholders are now utilised
• is a creative, mood/mindset and methods within
in service design to create potential service solutions
co-design process
with clients, the solutions of which are then to be
co-created with customers and producers.
• is about exchange of ideas, experiences,
Taking the participation even beyond PD, Cottam
expertise
and Leadbeater (2004) suggest that co-creating
6
PRODEEDINGS IASDR2011
• is temporary. It has specific parts within the
a service journey project in which the designer’s role
design process
was in the planning of the stage for the collaboration
Here we have mostly focused on the terms being
in early phase of a service design project. The last
used in the design field. It has to be emphasised that
case describes a service development project with
co-creation, however, has several meanings beyond
the mindset of users having a large role in the
design:
delivery of the service and were therefore involved
in many stages during the entire process, but as not
• a collective creativity as a mindset for
as designers, but as themselves in their everyday
collaborative activities (Sanders)
lives.
• business discussion about openness and exchange
as well as networking and crowdsourcing to
CASE 1 TEXTILE DESIGNER BUILDS A CREATIVE
create new values
INTERACTION WITH CO-DESIGNERS
• service co-creation as the moment of creation
The first case illustrates kids as co-designers. A
when a service is being delivered and even
textile designer wanted to involve school children
sharing responsibilities when creating and offering
into a process of creating textile prints for children.
services
The objective was to gain an understanding of the
Based on the literature above and our own
kids’ world, their preferences and to listen to their
experiences we have identified that the following
opinions in a creative process. The kids were first
issues seem to have influenced the usages of the co-
explained what textile design is about. Secondly,
X terms:
they were given a set of hand made probing tasks
a) The tradition, discipline, community and the
that included questions for telling about their lives,
discussion the co-X practice or research contributes
hobbies and such, colour samples for selecting the
to (PD, creativity, services, marketing, open
favourite colours, drawing tasks for telling about
innovation)
their homes, their dream rooms and creating textile
b) The attitude from user empowering to stakeholder
patterns. The designer then analysed the probing
engagement (whose contribution is allowed and
materials, made interpretations of the colours, the
emphasised)
lifestyles and pattern preferences and collected
b) The professional backgrounds and the roles when
them into mood boards and inspired by the results
using the methods (designers or researchers and the
designed a set of patterns. Finally, the designs were
level of participation)
evaluated by the same children. (Mitrunen 2010)
c) The objectives and outcomes (collaborative
learning or business profit)
CO-X CASES
The next section discusses five illustrative cases from
our own practice or from our colleagues. These cases
are chosen because show the variety and complexity
of co-design.
The first case shows a project, where an individual
designer organises an interactive co-design process
Figure 2. The upper row, co-designers instruments and co-design
in action. The lower row, resulting design ideas on the left by the
children and on the right by the designer.
with children. The second case is from business
context and shows a typical product design agency
that is implementing short user involvement sessions
Reflection
during their exploratory design activities. The third
The process of involving children was described as
case zooms in on getting together various
co-design because the collaborative engagement was
stakeholders and support envisioning and shared
part of a design process. The designer (as part of her
learning in the development phase of a new building
Master of Art thesis) had an agenda of widening her
and platform of activities. The fourth case discusses
7
DIVERSITY AND UNITY
own creative process with an interaction with the
their ideal products. The designers recruit users and
potential future ‘users’. There were several steps in
ask them to do explorative assignments at home and
the dialogue between the designer and the children.
come to the studio for a studio meeting. After the
The designer engaged the kids by providing them
studio meeting, the users’ involvement phase is over.
intruments, i.e. triggering tools to reflect their
The designers do not call this user involvement co-
preferences and express their visual creativity. They
creation or co-design. But they refer to these
also evaluated the resulting design patterns.
activities as contextmapping. This case illustrates
However, the designer kept her designer identity and
that even core design activities of design agencies
competence and was the one who was responsible of
are starting to see the benefit of involving users
the final designs – although strongly inspired by the
during idea generation. This is in line with Sanders’
exchange with the kids, which could be described as
way of emphasising creativity and expression of
co-creation in Sander’s words.
experiences. However, in the spectrum of co-x this is
a very small user involvement, and all authorities
and responsibilities are in the hands of the designers.
CASE 2 FINDING WAYS TO INVOLVE USERS IN SHORT
IDEA GENERATION SESSIONS
The second case is about a small design agency based
CASE 3 ENVISIONING THE COLLABORATION
in the Netherlands (WAACS) that started to
ENVIRONMENT
consistently involve users in the idea generation
The University of Art and Design Helsinki, Helsinki
phase since two years. The second author is often
University of Technology and Helsinki School of
shortly involved as a consultant of user involvement.
Economics were merged to become Aalto University
Sporadically they have asked or observed users to
in the beginning of 2010. The objective of the merge
understand the context of use, but were not
is to build an innovative environment for multi-
accustomed to involve users systematically before.
disciplinary education and research.
One of the designers, trained in contextmapping
One of Aalto University’s key projects is Design
introduced this method in a project to the other
Factory (DF), a building and a platform that aims at
designers, which led to inspired insights for new
joining people and activities from different
product solutions. Since then, they have invested
departments. DF’s main focus is in product
time and money to conduct user research in more
development education and research but it also
and more projects.
includes places for teamwork, meetings and various
forms of collaboration with companies as well as
Reflection
workshops for experimenting and prototyping.
The design agency’s core business is designing
As the planning of the DF was still in progress design
products. They see the value of involving users as a
researchers proposed to organise three creative
quick reality-check, i.e. to learn from users what
workshops, to discuss, envision and prototype DF
they didn’t know themselves or get confirmation
together with the potential users. The workshops
about what the designers think the users’ needs are.
served also as a collaborative stage for discussion
The role of the users is being informants to spark
among different stakeholders such as professors,
inspiration and to provide information about their
students and researchers from three partnering
everyday lives around a specific topic such as e.g.,
schools.
glue rollers. Where, how, what, when, why do they
The first workshop focused on setting a common
glue things and how do they experience that? The
vision of the core spirits and values of DF, the second
users are regarded as experts of their experiences
workshop focused on people and practices, i.e.
and through the user study the context of product
collaboratively identifying the key actors, the
use is brought into the design studio.
activities and work cultures. The third workshop
The designers are the creators having responsibility
focused on brainstorming spatial solutions. It aimed
of the quality and quantity of the created ideas. The
at planning, concretizing and prioritizing the
users are not creating design solutions although they
activities identified in the previous workshop in the
might suggest some ideas as they are asked to draw
actual setting of the DF.
8
PRODEEDINGS IASDR2011
The workshops were inspired the design games
well as in the resulting report that has functioned as
approach (Brandt 2006) that has its roots in the
the reminder for further development.
participatory design tradition. They combined
elements from board games such as game rules,
CASE 4 STAGEING DESIGN COLLABORATION
turn-taking, game board, and playing cards. They
The fourth case is about facilitating a process in
also applied elements of make tools (Sanders and
which the aim was to streamline customer services.
Dandavate 1999). Each workshop was an event for
Three co-design workshops were organized with the
reflection and the outcomes were transferred, e.g.
aim of gathering people from a complex network of
through the customized game materials, to the next
stakeholders together to discuss, plan and envision
event.
future service systems. The participants included
people from a public organisation and its partners.
The case is an example of a trend in which public
organisations and individual service providers are
learning customer-oriented service business. The
transformation process requires facilitation in the
learning of new attitudes and helping out of the box
thinking in organizations. (Hakio & Mattelmäki 2011)
Figure 3. Outcomes of collaborative ideation in DF
Reflection
The DF workshops were facilitated and planned by
design researchers who were also anticipated users
of the setting. They called the workshops co-design
workshops because of the application of design
games methods and because the process aimed at
design solutions in addition to collaborative
envisioning. The facilitators also joined the teams
Figure 4. Design games as the platform for collaborative
reflection
along with the other participants as equal codesigners. The outcomes of the workshops, such as
the spirit statements, the map of the actors and
The workshops applied design games as a way to
activities as well as the envisioned solution proposals
stage the collaboration. With the help of materials
were documented and reported to all the
that were specially designed for the purpose such as
participants, heads of DF and the people responsible
game boards, game rules, human-figures the aim was
of the interior design (who also took part of the
to support collaboration, discussion, reflection and
workshops). The process enabled people to share
communication of how the elements of service
their ideas, express their needs and become familiar
experience are connected. Teams were mapping the
with each other and DF. The applied methods and
existing practices, purposefully stressing the
materials aimed at supporting exploration and
customer- or human-centered perspective and
creative collaboration. How much the process
creatively seeking improvements. The organization
actually influenced the final designs and the action
had the responsibility of the implementation of the
plan of the DF has not been properly investigated.
ideas.
However, feedback from the workshop participants
and the key persons is DF development, (as well end-
Reflection
users of DF) indicates that the value of the workshop
The co-design workshops were planned and
was in the engaging process in which a number of
facilitated by design researchers. The reason for
players joined to discuss, learn, envision and plan
calling them co-design is due to the design games
together in a well structured but creative manner as
method and the mindset of considering things that
9
DIVERSITY AND UNITY
do not exist yet. However, the outcomes were not
plan for the social enterprise and how to set up the
really designs but rather a common understanding of
organisation.
the complexity and visions and ideas for the
improvement.
The workshops were planned to trigger creative
atmosphere, facilitate discussions within and among
teams, as well as the development of the overall
picture of service processes and how they interact
with the customer’s world.
The process resembles co-design as described by
Daim project, i.e. staging temporary learning and
experimentation events. The co-creation happens in
the interaction among the participants. In this case
designer’s role was purely in the consulting, i.e.
Figure 5. One of the participants is reacting on the propositions
for a new service presented in a brochure
planning of the process, introducing and adjusting
the tools and supporting of the mindset building. The
Reflection
continuity in implementing the initiatives was in the
In this case users were involved in several stages of
organization, the teams and individual participants.
the service. They were visited, observed,
interviewed about their everyday lives and some of
CASE 5 INVOLVING USERS IN THE DESIGN AND
them also gave feedback about the service ideas
DELIVERY OF SERVICES
created by the design team. Furthermore, users also
The project Gettogether was conducted in 2009 by
participated for two months in the experiential
Participle (www.participle.net), a design company
prototype usages of the service. The interesting
for public services, and the client was a
aspect here is that the users had an important role in
governmental organisation in the UK. The aim of the
the content production of the planned service and
project was to develop a service with a social
thus their role was considered important in the
component to enhance the lives of elderly people
development process. However, they had not been
who are in social isolation and feel lonely. The
asked to step into the designer’s shoes, use
designed service was a telephone group for having
designerly tools, be creative or generate ideas in a
phone chats with other people who are also often
design setting. Everything took place in their homes
isolated in their homes.
and their roles were to be themselves: everyday
The project team approached the topic in various
people.
ways including interviews and spending time with
The design process involved users and other
several older people, caregivers and community
stakeholders iteratively in many phases of the
workers. Equipped with the gathered understanding
development process. The design responsibility
the project team developed several ideas which
remained in the design team however. The project
were then presented to the same elderly people for
team never explicitly used the term co-design during
feedback.
the project and in the documentation of this project.
As the concept was developed on the idea that users
Is this co-design then? In our opinion it is. The
would also be part of the service production an
developed service is also about co-creation in the
experiential prototype as built. Through the pilot
sense presented: the user participates in the service
usage of the prototype the team was also able to
experience.
observe how the elderly would use this service; what
roles they took and how the filled in part of the
DISCUSSION
service with their own needs and capabilities. The
end result of the project was a report with the
This diversity of the cases above gives insight in the
design of the service, a blue print and a business
various aspects of co-design such as roles of
designers, design researchers, users, and other
10
PRODEEDINGS IASDR2011
stakeholders. Designers facilitate and enhance the
In this paper we wanted to clarify the ambiguous
creativity of others, learn with and are inspired from
uses of co-design and co-creation. This has been
other co-designers. These cases also illustrate how
motivated by a desire to teach our students what the
co-design can vary depending on the organization
co-X tools are, but what to do with them and how
and the field of design. Co-design takes place in
they are constructed. For that they need to know
product design setting as well as in educational
that co-design processes asks for an open mindset of
environment. There is also a great variety on how
all involved people. Moreover, it is a fruitful but
they are organized including the time span of the
complex process that takes time and effort. Finally,
engagement and the phases of the development
the complexity (defining different roles, stepping in
process. There are differences in the level of the
stepping out, and creating/providing the right tools
contributions from end users and stakeholders.
at the right moment to the right people) of
Moreover, all of the cases are built on a particular
organising such processes asks for skills and decisions
mindset that
in the application of the tools. This is particularly
1) emphasises that people, whether users or other
useful when co-design approaches and design
actors, can be contribute to design when they are
competences are needed in new application areas
valued and they given the possibility. This has to do
such as service design, transformation design or
both on the empowering attitude but also in the idea
social innovations.
of their valuable contribution through their own
experience and expertise;
2) believes that the collective activity creates an
REFERENCES
exchange of ideas, collective exploration and
Binder, T. (2010) Beyond methods. In Halse, J., Brandt, E., Clark,
B., Binder, T. (eds) Rehearsing the future. The Danish Design
School Press, Denmark.
learning that is more than individual reflection and;
3) concerns with envisioning and ”what if” questions,
Brandt, E. & Agger Eriksen, M. (2010) Co-design events. In Halse,
J., Brandt, E., Clark, B., Binder, T. (eds) Rehearsing the future.
The Danish Design School Press. Denmark.
i.e. it is not about understanding specific phenomena
but aims at exploring and finding design ideas,
reasons, problems and opportunities with the goal of
change.
Brandt, E. (2006) Designing Exploratory Design Games: A
Framework for Participation in Participatory Design? In
Proceedings of PDC 2006, Trento, Italy. Vol. 1, 57–66.
CONCLUSIONS
Brown, T. (2009) Change by Design. How design thinking
transforms organisations and inspires innovation. HarperCollins,
New York.
In the beginning of the paper we were lost in the
Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., Winhall, J. (2006) RED paper
02: Transformation Design, Design Council.
www.designcouncil.info/mt/RED/transformationdesign/
terms of co-creation and co-design. Through
literature review and case descriptions we have
Cottam, H.& Leadbeater, C. (2004) RED Paper 01: HEALTH: Cocreating Services. Design Council.
UK.www.designcouncil.info/RED/health/REDPaper01.pdf
made landmarks into the map of co-X. We did not
aim to one definition of the relationship of the terms
but rather to clarify their use.
Ehn, P. (2008) Participation in Design Things. In Proceedings of
Participatory Design Conference, Indiana University. US. 92-101.
Every design process aims at exploring and finding
Evenson, S. (2005) Designing for services. Designing Pleasurable
Products and Interfaces DPPI. Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 149161..
design solutions. Co-design is a process and the
planning, adjusting tools and facilitation is built on a
mindset based on collaboration. Co-creation can take
Foverskov, M. , Dam, K. (2010) The evocative sketch. In: Halse, J.,
et al (eds) Rehearsing the future. The Danish Design School Press.
place within co-design processes but focuses much
Fulton Suri, J. (2003) The experience of evolution: developments
in design practice. The Design Journal, vol6 no2. Ashgate
publishing U.K.39-48
more on the collective creativity of involved users
and stakeholders.
When looking from another perspective outside
Hakio, K & MAttelmäki, T. (2011) Design adventures in public
sector. DPPI2011. In press.
design research and practice co-creation appears as
Halse, J., Brandt, E., Clark, B., Binder, T. (2010) Rehearsing the
Future. The Danish Design School Press.
a bigger trend that deals with openness,
collaboration and partnership. From that perspective
van der Helm, A., Stappers, P.J., Keyson, D., & Hekkert, P. (2010)
The ID-StudioLab 2005-2010: Further developing a creative
research environment. In: Achten, H., de Vries, B., & Stappers,
co-design is among the practices in which cocreation is concretized.
11
DIVERSITY AND UNITY
P.J. Design Research in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the
Symposium May 20-21 Eindhoven.
Sanders, E.B.-N. (1999) Postdesign and participatory culture. In
Keynote proceedings of the Useful and critical conference.
University of Art and Design Helsinki.
Keinonen, T. (2009) Design Method –Instrument, Competence of
Agenda? Multiple ways to Design Research, Swiss Design Research
Network Symposium '09. 12–13.
Sanders, E. B.-N. (2000) Generative tools for codesigning. In
Scrivener, Ball and Woodcock (Eds.) Collaborative Design. Springer
Verlag. London.
Koskinen, I., Battarbee, K. & Mattelmäki, T. (eds) (2003) Empathic
Design. IT press. Finland.
Sanders, E. B.-N. (2001) Collective Creativity. LOOP: AIGA Journal
of Interaction Design Education, August, Number 3.
Lucero Vera, A. (2009) Co-Designing interactive spaces for and
with designers: supporting mood-board making. Doctoral
dissertation. TU Eindhoven. Jyväskylä Finland.
Sanders, E.B.-N. (2002) Scaffolds for experiencing in the new
design space. Information Design Institute for Information Design.
Japan (Eds), IID.J, Graphic-Sha Publishing Co.Ltd.
Van der Lugt et al. (2009) Co-creation pressure cooker.
Sanders, E.B.-N. (2005) Information, Inspiration and Cocreation.
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the European
Academy of Design. Bremen Germany.
Mager, B. (2009) Service design as an emerging field. In:
Miettinen, S. & Koivisto. M. (eds) Designing Services with
innovative methods. Publication series of the University of Art and
Design Helsinki. Keuruu Finland. 28-43
Sanders, E.B.-N. and Dandavate, U. (1999) Design for
experiencing: New tools. Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Design and Emotion, Delft, The Netherlands. 87-92.
Mattelmaki, T. (2006) Design Probes. Doctoral Thesis. University of
Art and Design Helsinki, Finland.
Sanders, E.B.-N., Stappers, P.J. (2008) Co-creation and the new
landscapes of design. Special issue of CoDesign, 4 (1), 5–18.
Mattelmäki, T., Hasu, M., Ylirisku, S. (2009) Creating Mock-ups of
Strategic Partnerships. Proceedings of IASRD conference in Seoul,
Korea.
Sanders, E.B.-N., William, C.T (2001) Harnessing People’s
Creativity: Ideation and expression through visual communication.
In: Langford, J., McDonagh-Philp, D. (eds.) Focus Groups:
Supportive effective product development. London: Taylor and
Francis.
Miettinen, S. & Koivisto. M. (eds) Designing Services with
innovative methods. Publication series of the University of Art and
Design Helsinki. Keuruu Finland.
Mitrunen, E. (2010) Kuosit käyttäjiä kohtaamassa (Patterns meet
users). Unpublished Master of Art thesis. Aalto University School of
Art and Design. Helsinki Finland.
Sleeswijk Visser, F., Visser, V. (2005) Re-using users: Co-create
and co-evaluate. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 10(2–3).148–
152.
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V. (2000) Co-opting customer
competence Harvard Business Review 78(1).
Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P.J., van der Lugt, R., Sanders,
E.B.-N. (2005) Contextmapping: Experiences from practice.
CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and Arts,
1(2). 119–149.
Paaper, M. (2009) Co-creation’s 5 guiding principles. Or….what is
successful co-creation made of? White paper of Fronteer Strategy.
2009 (www.marketing-online.nl/images/24724.pdf)
van Rijn, H., Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P.J. (2009) Connecting
through interacting: Toys that help designers learn from children
with autism by playing with them. International Association of
Societies of Design Research 2009: Rigor and Relevance in Design,
18-22 October, Seoul, South Korea.
Stappers, P.J., van Rijn, H., Kistemaker, S., Hennink, A.,
Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2009) Designing for other people's strengths
and motivations: Three cases using context, visions, and
experiential prototypes. Advanced Engineering Informatics,
Special Issue on Human-Centered Product Design and
Development, 23(2), 174-183.
Rizzo, F. (2010) Co-design versus User Centred Design: Framing
the differences. In Guerrini, L. (Ed) Notes on Design Doctoral
Research. Franco Angeli Editore.
Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F. (2008) From goods to service(s):
Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial marketing
management 37. 254-259.
Saakes, D.P. (2007) A media toolbox for ideation workshops. Tools
in Support of Creative Collaboration, as part of Creativity and
Cognition, Washington D.C, June 13-15.
Winsor, J. (2006) SPARK: Be More Innovative Through Co-Creation.
Dearborn Trade Publishing. Chicago.US.
www.participle.net
Sanders, E.B.-N. (1992) Converging perspectives: product
development research for the 1990s. Design management journal.
Fall.
12